Democratic lawmaker: Women's clothing an 'invitation' to harassment

a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's not about women having to dress a certain way because creepers exist.

it's about being responsible enough to understand the risks you take when you dress a certain way because creepers exist.

Even the example of the dress I posted is enough to draw the attention of a creeper if a woman wears it well. It does cover and doesn't show a ton of skin, but it's cut in such a way that it enhances a figure for the right kind of woman to pull it off.

Heck, I got sexually harassed while I was taking inventories as a temp job and I was wearing unflattering slacks and a baggy work shirt. A creeper will creep.

a reply to: ketsuko

Heck, I got sexually harassed while I was taking inventories as a temp job and I was wearing unflattering slacks and a baggy work shirt. A creeper will creep.

Sorry to hear that.

That was my entire point, which I made in an earlier post.
They do not need incentive, which basically negates the specious idea that what’s worn has anything to do with it.
The so called “risk” is always there, regardless.

Party pooper. I was going to ask her if she wanted to go get a beer at the strip club.

Yeah I know, I'm a pig.

Goes both ways.

When I wear my banana hammock thong at the beach or the by the pool, the ladies objectify me with their eyes, their stares, practically undressing me in their minds.

It's like they think I'm just a slab of meat. Even have had a few slap my finely toned tush on occasion. Someone should tell them I'm simply dressing for comfort.

Dressing in a certain inviting manner invites attention?? Is that so? Well no s#, Sherlock, thanks for playing in today's round of Captain Obvious.

I cannot wrap my mind around how attire etiquette is so lost on today's women. Dress for business at work, dress for relaxation at home, dress respectably somewhere in between out in public, dress like a hooker if you want to go to the right avenue to bag a one-nighter. It's so goddamn simple, clothing speaks volumes. Low-rider jeans with the whale tail sticking out and see-through top with the plunging neckline to the navel doesn't scream "I'm free to be me, yay!" For god's sake, that screams "I need a screw real bad, come at me, boys!"
If you don't want to be understood as a town door knob where EVERYONE gets a turn because you're constantly on the sexual attention prowl, then don't dress like that in the first place! Advertising sexually enticing assets attracts the willing & interested. It's a very basic mating ploy hardwired into us, it's NOT going anywhere just because feminists say it's "choice" or "style'.
How is this difficult to understand?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I don't want to think about what it might have been like if I'd been trying to attract attention to myself over simply trying to do a crappy job though. If he was that bad when I looked like death warmed over ... what would he have been like if I'd actually made an effort?

a reply to: ketsuko

I love the vintage/retro look of this dress.

Beats a burka in style and comfort, that's for sure. (Unless it's -40 degrees outside and raining men, hallelujah.)

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

I love the vintage/retro look of this dress.

I had a website where I sold vintage/retro clothing.

There are some I definitely like.

The market fell because private companies were paying to get first access to donated clothes. They go through them, then ship them to China. China would make cheap knockoffs. And sell the original to collectors or costume departments. The only way to stay in the business was Estate Sales -- and you really had to know your stuff. I was learning, but not knowledgeable enough.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Kaptur said women on Capitol Hill should have to abide by a stricter dress code, like those adopted by the military or corporations.

“Maybe I’ll get booed for saying this, but many companies and the military [have] a dress code,” she said. “I have been appalled at some of the dress of ... members and staff. Men have to wear ties and suits.”

She did tell Politico that she never meant to suggest that women were inviting it or to blame for it, but I guess she's trying to walk a fine line in suggesting that relaxed professionalism leads to relaxed standards in other ways and ... well, being accused of blaming women in today's society.

I call bs on everybody here. Only men make men wear "ties and suits", for one. Two, how a person dresses is not what makes another person drop all their manners and act idiotically.

I'm encouraged to dress "slutty" at work (I call it "garbage chic" but whatever) because it fits our image. All the girls do. The guys do too, in a certain fashion. When I go outside for breaks, I get the expected attention warranted for my outfits but, when inside for work... super rare. A mature workforce and clientele who know they'll be 86'ed for the slightest amount of disrespect or line-crossing is an amazing thing.

To blame a woman's cleavage for a man's harassing behavior is like blaming a nicely-dressed person for getting robbed. I mean, they were dressed like they had money so they must have had it coming, right? Or... maybe we just have a society that doesn't accept people getting robbed?

I feel sorry for women like Kaptur, who have been convinced that she needs to dress to dictate the behavior of others. And that's the key message that is so sad: dress to dictate the behavior of others.

Screw that. Always screw that.

originally posted by: ketsuko

I mentioned elsewhere that my company has a cocktail attire party. I'd wear something like this to it. Absolutely classic, absolutely modest, but also able to make a woman look good.

That is a nice dress. I love to see women in classy dresses like that.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Does one have to look "sexy" in order to look good though? And does one have to look "sexy" in order to feel good about oneself?

No, and no.

The problem is not how women dress, it's how men respond, and have done so (and have gotten away with) for so long.

This issue is deep.

It's all women's fault.

It began long ago in the garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve.

Adam was minding his own business, enjoying the garden, when Eve came up to him and offered him the forbidden fruit.

The woman "presents" the fruit to the man.

Sure, they could see the fruit hanging there in the middle of their garden.

But, were told not to eat it.

Gee...they didn't even know they were "naked." What's that?

She entices him to taste.

Temptress.



But, truth.

If the man doesn't see it, he's busy with other things. Like his cars, or computers, or video games, etc...

She has to "get his attention" away from all those things he'd rather be occupied with.

That's why she spends 2 hours in front the mirror putting on all that make up. It takes lots of effort
to draw the male's attention away from all his other "toys".

Of course, the rule, from the beginning of time, is the woman "presents" the fruit to the man.

The man isn't allowed to "take it".

In the garden of Eden, it was just Adam and Eve. Only one man to worry about.

But, by being fruitful and multiplying, today there are many men around.

And the signals intended for one special man gets received and misinterpreted by other men who then think it's for them.

This is why the Muslims cover up the women, so only the husband gets the signals.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Does one have to look "sexy" in order to look good though? And does one have to look "sexy" in order to feel good about oneself?

No, and no.

The problem is not how women dress, it's how men respond, and have done so (and have gotten away with) for so long.

This issue is deep.

It's all women's fault.

It began long ago in the garden of Eden, with Adam and Eve.

Adam was minding his own business, enjoying the garden, when Eve came up to him and offered him the forbidden fruit.

The woman "presents" the fruit to the man.

Sure, they could see the fruit hanging there in the middle of their garden.

But, were told not to eat it.

Gee...they didn't even know they were "naked." What's that?

She entices him to taste.

Temptress.

But, truth.

If the man doesn't see it, he's busy with other things. Like his cars, or computers, or video games, etc...

She has to "get his attention" away from all those things he'd rather be occupied with.

That's why she spends 2 hours in front the mirror putting on all that make up. It takes lots of effort
to draw the male's attention away from all his other "toys".

Of course, the rule, from the beginning of time, is the woman "presents" the fruit to the man.

The man isn't allowed to "take it".

In the garden of Eden, it was just Adam and Eve. Only one man to worry about.

But, by being fruitful and multiplying, today there are many men around.

And the signals intended for one special man gets received and misinterpreted by other men who then think it's for them.

This is why the Muslims cover up the women, so only the husband gets the signals.

Ew.

Maybe the woman "spends 2 hours in front the mirror putting on all that make up" because that's the way she wants to present herself. Maybe it's because that's the way she can get to the minimum expectations of what society expects women to look like. Maybe it's because, if she doesn't, she gets entirely ignored by men and doesn't get heard when she speaks.

Maybe it has nothing to do with trying to "entice" you.

originally posted by: Abysha
Maybe it's because, if she doesn't, she gets entirely ignored by men and doesn't get heard when she speaks.
.

Sad, isn't it. That the great female singers have to take off most of their clothes on stage, just to get the men to listen to their great voice. While the men are all there oogling over her sexy body, and fantsizing taking her to bed, she can imagine that it's her talented singing that is bringing in the crowds. Everyone is delusional.

If a woman sends out sexy messages, that's the message that is received.

If she wants to be heard, her voice should be the only thing "on show" projecting the message, while all the other "distractions" should be kept to a minimum.

That's how to communicate effectively, without self-delusions.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Abysha
Maybe it's because, if she doesn't, she gets entirely ignored by men and doesn't get heard when she speaks.
.

Sad, isn't it. That the great female singers have to take off most of their clothes on stage, just to get the men to listen to their great voice. While the men are all there oogling over her sexy body, and fantsizing taking her to bed, she can imagine that it's her talented singing that is bringing in the crowds. Everyone is delusional.

If a woman sends out sexy messages, that's the message that is received.

If she wants to be heard, her voice should be the only thing "on show" projecting the message, while all the other "distractions" should be kept to a minimum.

That's how to communicate effectively, without self-delusions.

What? Sex in general is a commodity in entertainment. Men also flaunt their stuff. If a pop star dances on stage, wearing skimpy clothing, flashing some skin... what does that have to do with what other people wear?

You are conflating show business with day-to-day life and behavior.

Again, it comes down to the insinuation that I have to dress a certain way in order for others to behave in a decent manner. And again, screw that.

Am I right that this is about work? I really hope this is about work only.
I agree that there is no need for sexiness at a work place. Even our idiotic PM May has had her stuff hanging out too much sometimes.
I have never worked at places where you could just look like out on the tiles. However I have worn skirts and high heeled shoes to work. The only difference is that I looked still 'worky'. It actually was one reason that got me out of bed. I love my clothes, I like dressing nice.
When I worked in laboratories, covered in lab coats, wearing sensible shoes, you can't look sexy.

Anyway, I had an arts teacher who used to be a model and she wore loose blouses with nothing underneath, my best mate at the time [boy] used to love art.

However what none of them thought is that they should now go and have sex with her!

That is the most important message.

Yes I think at work you should tone it down. No you shouldn't when it is your day off. Yes you can wear whatever you like, it is NOT an invitation to be humped on without asking by a rabid male.

Clothes are NOT the sign for "have sex with me", it is a sign of showing your body and fishing for compliments, maybe for finding a partner but it is not the same as a billboard shouting: "SEX HERE", unless you are a prostitute.

If a woman wants sex, they will let you know. If you are as bad as the majority of males on here who can't read the signs, then you have to learn more about females and why they do what they do.
For men it is straight forward.

Spread your legs whilst sitting on a chair, obviously means you want sex. No?
You have a wife and kids and you are in love?
But why do you sit there with your legs open you clearly want sex, now!
Can any women now have a grope and a feel? Because that is what you signal to us.

Am I slightly wrong here?

Then so are YOU assuming crap about women and their clothes.

a reply to: ketsuko

It really does not matter who says it. Its STILL nonsense.

I do not care if a woman is walking stark naked down the street, a gentleman should not automatically objectify the female of the species, regardless of what they happen to be wearing, how they happen to be wearing it, or indeed be about the business of forming opinions of the individual without actually communicating with them first.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko

It really does not matter who says it. Its STILL nonsense.

I do not care if a woman is walking stark naked down the street, a gentleman should not automatically objectify the female of the species, regardless of what they happen to be wearing, how they happen to be wearing it, or indeed be about the business of forming opinions of the individual without actually communicating with them first.

In a nutshell, as usual.

Beautifully said.

it seems to me - that :

i can legitimatly critisise the attire choices of EVERYONE

EXCEPT women - in a " social environment "

why is that ???

a reply to: ketsuko

I had to share this post with my hubby... I knew he'd get a laugh!!! My hubby thinks the sexiest thing I own is a black suit with a pencil skirt. He says it perfectly shows off every curve. And I doubt he's the only man who appreciates a woman in a well tailored suit... And this is from a guy who was a beach brat like me and has seen more girls in a bikini than you could shake a stick at... and now we live in a desert, where shorts and tank tops and sundresses are common attire nine months of the year. It's not all about skin.

If I ran an office, I'd probably have a dress code too. But it's not going to stop any hanky panky in the office... and it sure as hell ain't going to stop creepers from creeping. Sexual predation is a crime of power -- not lust. And like so many predators of all kinds, they will blame the victim for one reason or another. But here's the thing. The vast majority of guys look and think what they want, and it isn't a problem unless and until they force themselves on someone. Clothes don't change the rules. No one has any right to do anything to anyone without their consent. Period. Full stop. No buts about it.

If it was said by a Republican (man or woman) they'd be the headline of every fake news outlet for a week discussing the war on women, etc.

But since its'a Democrat you won't see it ran anywhere but Fox.